Then I'll have to wait to have a new SD card, because as of now I'm using a 8 GB Kingston Class 10 microSD with and SD adapter...Thanks

And what about, knowing if the patch is applied ? I went through every link you sent me in your other POST and I don't see any reference to this... The only one I found was in the FAQ's section and as I said before I followed it step by step, no errors in camera, everything seemed to go OK, but the body firm section still says it has version 1.1 of the firmware. How can this be ?

In my GF2 ISO menu I have access to ISO 5000 and 6400, does that mean that Sanity has been loaded correctly ? For what I know my camera had originally ISO 6400 already. Second question you guys keep taking about HBR, 24p and some other parameters that I can't seem to find anywere, where are they ? For what I see, I only have the 1080i, 720p and MJPEG options, are my doing something wrong ?

Is there any way to confirm that sanity has correctly modified the firmware of the camera ? I check the firm version number for the body and still has number 1.1 firm version after the update (following the FAQ's step by step) is there any other way to check if the ini is working ? I have a new GF2 and I'm new at this.

@mo7ies Oh, I misunderstood. I increased the playback speed of the VMM video in Sony Vegas so it would display in real-time at 30fps. As for using VMM instead of HBR, HBR is compromised in all of the different settings. In Sanity, 24p and VMM give over 1 MB I frames, whereas HBR gives approximately half that and looks noticeably worse. I lose sound, but so far, poorly recorded rustling leaves haven't been compelling audio.

@peternap You can download the MTS I linked to take a look. If you go frame by frame, you should be able to clearly see the difference between an I frame and the rest of the GOP. Weather was hot, and I was lugging around a heavy tripod, so I was as well.

@Ashun VERY NICE! What problems did you have with the water and what was he weather?

You must have steel nerves. The pans were great!

@Ashun - very nice!

Why at 80%, though?

Oh lordy no! I'm obsessive but in that annoying autodidact way where I think everything I hear is some great rare discovery, but actually I know NOTHING (which is good, then I can actually maybe learn something... and then get it all wrong anyway)

I don't know, maybe it looks "darker", but it certainly looks like it's doing what a black pro mist does, which is to say it lightens the shadows a bit and darkens highlights a bit, all dependent on how hard or directional your lighting is. Again, though, I've never heard of a DP using any exposure compensation for one of those unless they wanted more or less halo-ing, bumping up the exposure gives you more of course (obvious example all the hot lighting in a "JFK" or "Casino" blowing out hands and what-not), and I used to be OBSESSED with Robert Richardson and reading A.C. articles, and following David Mullen on Cinematography.com and all that jazz, taking in all these diffusion discussions (although I am famous for not remembering anything I read (seriously though if you have an idle hour or five, reading up on the long exhaustive history of diffusion filters is kinda interesting (and then like me you might get obsessed with Nestor Almendros and do away with any diffusion at all, and then swing this and way and that willy nilly, and get mostly obsessed with parentheticals)).... All that said, first and foremost trust your eyes, which you're doing and are way in the right to do I'd say, so if you would prefer an exposure bump, go for it, but to say you can't draw ANY conclusion from those shots doesn't sound right to me.

I've never heard of anyone doing any sort of exposure compensation with a pro mist or most "diffusion" filters, but certainly like Ralph said they can act differently depending on lighting, like if you had hard direct sun the halo-ing around highlights could bother you, so you'd stop down perhaps. I know going post for everything seems to be the trend, but I'm not crazy about it, and it's not like using the actual glass filters has been bugging Janusz Kaminski, Robert Richardson, blah blah blah... (meaning that black pro mist exactly for many Richardson features)

I understand that exposure was locked, however one is suppose to adjust it when a filter is added, to compensate for the light loss in the filter. Then the actual (measured) exposure between the scenes will equalize.

@mo7ies,

Actually, ISO, exposure, and F-Stop are identical on all those clips. All I did was change out the filters between clips. I was using a pretty flat profile to begin with at -2,-2,-1,0.

Again, just a test to see if the kit lens could be made to look a little less "video-ish"

Thanks for the suggestions though, greatly appreciated.

@tcarretti Thanks for that filter test. Very useful. The warm black diffusion 1/4 is indeed a pleasant surprise. It makes everything look more three dimensional. However, the thing to keep in mind with filters is that the subject matter plays a big role in the final result. For example, if you did the same test outdoors in direct sunlight with deep shadows, we might come to a different conclusion about which one is "best".